11/07/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

15. That the Applicant has stated that there are unique circumstances, namely the non- conforming existing structures around Rogers Lake, the differing setback standards between communities, and 'the extra right-of-way and setbacks required for land adjacent to a County road. 16. That the request is not based solely on the presence of non-conforming structures 'in the same district. 17. That the unique circumstances on the Subject~ Property, namely the. existence .of non- .conforming structures, differing setback standards from adjacent communities, and the required right-of-way and setbacks on County Road #27, do/do not result from the actions of the Applicant. 18. That, if granted, the variance will/will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 19. That, if granted, the variance will/will not increase the. congestion-in the public street. 20. That, if granted, the variance will/will not adversely impact the degree of public health, safety and general welfare provided for in the Ramsey City Code. 21. That, if granted, the variance will/will not diminish established property values within the neighborhood. 22. That, if granted, the variance will/will not violate the intent and pu~ose of the Comprehensive Plan. 23. That an undo hardship will/will not result if the variance is denied. 24. That the literal interpretation of the-Rogers Lake and-County road setback requirements would/would not deprive the APplicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. 25. That, if granted, the variance will/will not grant the Applicants any special privilege that is denied to the owners of other land in the same district. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Board Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: and the following abstained: and the following were absent: Resolution #02-11- .Page 3 ~of 4 13